Massachusetts Federal District Court Suit Challenges DOMA

03/04/09 LA Times: ""The [DOMA] statute wouldn't be ripped to shreds," said Laurence H. Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School, "but it would be unconstitutional as applied to circumstances like these where you have two couples identically legally married in the states where they live but one is entitled to financial or other tangible benefits that the other couple can't get."

03/03/09 Foley Hoag press release:

"Lawyers at Foley Hoag LLP announced the landmark filing today of the first concerted, multi-plaintiff challenge to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The lawsuit was filed in Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts with Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) and Sullivan & Worcester LLP ... Today’s suit addresses the use of Section 3 of DOMA to deny same-sex married couples and surviving spouses vital rights and benefits, including Social Security benefits, federal income tax protections, federal employees’ and retirees’ benefits, and passports issued in one’s married name."

03/03/09 ADF press release:

"Public policy should be decided by the public, not by one judge and a very small number of radical activists,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum. “America continues to overwhelmingly reaffirm that marriage is one man and one woman. Does the democratic process mean anything anymore?"

03/03/09 AP:

"Mary Bonauto, GLAD's Civil Rights Project director, said the lawsuit is the first major challenge to the section of the law that denies same-sex couples access to more than 1,000 federal programs and legal protections in which marriage is a factor"

"Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School, said the lawsuit is a 'plausible challenge' to DOMA. 'It's a question of whether Congress oversteps its bounds and engages in irrational discrimination when it draws a line in terms of concrete benefits for individuals who are otherwise eligible simply because the marriages they have entered involve same-sex couples rather than opposite-sex couples.'

" 'Massachusetts has made benefits available on a state level, but Massachusetts can't force the federal government's hand or the other states to accept same-sex marriage,' said Mathew Staver, founder of the Liberty Counsel."

03/02/09 NY Times:


“In our view, it’s a straightforward equal-protection issue,” said Mary L. Bonauto."


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PROP8LEGALCOMMENTARY HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR IS PROP8LEGALCOMMENTARY ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.